Full Council Meeting

Cloverdale Veterans Memorial 9-2PM

AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENTS--Due to lack of quorum, Fred Euphrat began the meeting with updates from the agencies. Mike Dillabough, the project manager for the Russian River Watershed Management Plan for the Army Corps of Engineers, began encouragement for the Council to continue our existing partnerships for projects that fall within the guidelines for the CA Dept of Fish and Game and Army Corps of Engineers. Spinoff projects are not uncommon in a process like this. As the Russian River is recognized by California and the federal government as a navigable waterway, the Corps does have some jurisdiction. Audience members asked for removal of steel erosion jacks previously installed by the Army Corps of Engineers as they present a hazard to river users. If Council members want to lobby their federal representatives with letters for funding to remove the jacks, Mike will be able to refine and carry a sample draft bill proposal for the Council. During next river cleanup, volunteers could mark jack locations for removal.

Derek Acomb of Dept of Fish and Game presented a copy of the draft Russian River Basin Fisheries Restoration Plan that is also available at the Council website ( www.rrwc.net) under NEW link. Using data collected between 1994-2001, the plan reviews historical and current land uses within the basin, salmonid habitat, and limiting factors. Reviewing the restoration needs of each sub basin and addressing the river system wide problems by getting better flow gauging and water quality data, especially for temperature and sediment, will identify the best opportunities for protection and restoration of the Russian River.

AGENDA APPROVAL was modified to state environmental caucus motion to support fishway should read "to include fishway". Motion passed with 28 ayes.

MINUTES OF MAY 11, 2002 were approved by 22 ayes after a correction from Bob Klamt about State Water Resources Control Board listings for the Russian River for sediment began in 1998 and is still listed as impaired for sediment. The North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board has been recommending the Russian River be listed as impaired for temperature as well but the State Board does not heed this recommendation yet.

ANNOUNCEMENTS-Bob Clemens announced that the Sequoia Paddling Club is planning a demonstration near Memorial Beach in Healdsburg where Syar has fenced off a historic river access point, making it impossible to portage around the dam. Contact 887-7416 for more information.

Peggy Maddock announced that the Public Outreach and Education work group would meet in the break area to discuss plans for the next work group meeting.

Brock Dolman announced the availability of his recent article on Basins of Relation in the Summer 2002 issue of Permaculture Activist. The article includes a bibliography of recommending reading and resources for understanding watershed issues.

FISHWAY MOTION was brought forward from the environmental caucus so that public interest for the fishway as part of the reconnaissance study can be demonstrated to local public officials. This motion originally was brought forward by the salmonid restoration work group in January 2002 when it would have been more timely. The fishway is included in the Army Corps' reconnaissance study. The letter was approved with the amended change in the 4th line of the last paragraph where "consideration" is changed to "study". 28 ayes 0 no

NORTH COAST WATERSHED ASSESSMENT was presented by Robert Klamt, a senior engineer with the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. CA State Resources Agency began the assessment in 2000 as a seven year multidisciplinary review of existing data. WQB provides water quality data, CDF provides land use data, DFG provides fishery data, DMG provides geologic and SWR provides hydrologic data. The goals are to develop baseline information and a database that identifies factors limiting salmon production and guides watershed restoration programs and cooperative approaches.

By identifying gaps in the data and overlaying different data layers to see land use interactions with the hydrology and geology in the watershed, it will be easier to identify constraints for particular projects due to resources, timing or access. The first watershed synthesis for the Redwood Creek, Mattole River and Gualala River watersheds is about to be released. By observing natural processes and trends, each assessment report will include recommendations for habitat restoration, land management practices and monitoring with geographic information system maps and KRIS data. For example, the first synthesis shows salmonid impacts from high temperature and sediment levels in Redwood Creek watershed as well as the lack of large woody debris and estuary habitat.

The first draft of the synthesis will be reviewed by local watershed groups. The draft is reviewed by the agency director before the governor's office finishes the review at the end of August. By October the report will be available on the web with hard copies due on October 25. The assessments for Albion and Big River will be published in Spring 2003.

Information on the program is available at their website < www.ncwatershed.ca.gov >.

Questions
Is the Gualala River information being used by the State Water Resources in their considerations for the water bag proposals to ship water out of the watershed?
SWR has some of the information but the report has not been completely compiled yet.

After October, what happens next to areas that have been assessed?
Local watershed groups can use the information to lobby for funding recommended projects.
What about funding for the future?
The assessment is funded through FY02 and a FY03 budget is planned for the Albion and Scott watersheds. The baseline budget for the program will be funded over the next 7 years till all the north coast basins have been assessed.

DATA COLLECTION, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION PANEL was moderated by Daniel Iacofano with David Lewis- the Russian River Watershed Management Advisor from UC Cooperative Extension, Revital Katznelson- Regional Citizen Monitoring Coordinator for the State Water Resources Control Board, and Colin Brooks-GIS Analyst for Integrated Hardwood Range Management Program at UC Hopland Research and Extension center.

David Lewis explained how science and research is used to develop education programs for the community. As each data set is developed, it is imperative to recognize the purpose or goal of collecting the data so that the methods and sampling frequency will provide good data. As data is collected is important to weigh the accuracy vs. precision required. As an example if someone has a jar of four kinds of ladybugs, more precise methods such as species keys and magnifying lenses are probably required vs. a jar of earwigs and ladybugs would only need a patient person with good eyes to be sorted. The key is to consider how much value the data has so that you make cost effective decisions about which methods to use in developing the data.

Revital Katznelson talked about how regional monitoring coordinators help local citizens collect data. By providing technical evaluation of methods for the parameters being studied, she can assist local groups to identify proper techniques. She is a trained water quality specialist and demonstrates good data design, collection and management strategies to citizen groups.

Colin Brooks reviewed data sources. The first consideration is what data already exists for the issue of interest. Lots of information on the Russian River is available in GIS with Circuit Riders releasing a new CD in September 2002. Sonoma County has a GIS request line and provides access to aerial and USGS quad maps. Second consideration is what data is coming. For instance, DFG stream assessments are still being completed, RCD's are developing Sudden Oak Death and restoration information, and RRIIS will provide access to many existing data sources as well as being updated in real time. The third consideration is what data gaps exist. More information about water rights, soil types, recent imagery for Mendocino county, updated land use maps for both counties and photo points associated with particular geographies, and multi agency projects displayed in one layer are some outstanding needs.

How do you avoid some of the common pitfalls associated with data collection?
People don't always speak the same language so qualifying your terms and having common data formats that consider who the audience for the data is and readily communicate the intent and results of the study is critical. Always keep the user of the data in mind when planning the data collection, so that enough samples are collected and analyzed for the needed parameters at the right frequency to be useful.

How do you allow your data to have the most impact?
Clearly documenting what you did and posting it for peer review will qualify your data. Using standardized data collection methods is preferred. Reviewing how the data fits together and understanding how tight the tolerances have to be make the data useful is important before you collect the first data point.

What are the limits of science or logic in deciding parameters?
Determining your objective will influence which parameters are the most useful to your study. When a new area of study is being researched, it's difficult to quantify what you don't know about what you don't know.

What is a good role for the Council in data development?
The Council can help by providing long term monitoring capacity for the watershed over 20 or 30 years. By finding out what information is already available for the Russian River watershed and sharing that information among interested parties will help focus data gathering efforts more effectively.

In talking about data management, what about data subtraction? How do you decide when to throw something out?
In one instance a timberland task force discarded the vegetation layer that was submitted because it was inaccurate. Discard data that is incompatible with the study format due to the wrong scale or lack of data points. Keep up to date on developments in the field. For instance, macro invertebrates were once deemed a good indicator for water quality but as more data is collected, there is tremendous variability in different geographies so that presence of macro invertebrates may only indicate the presence of fish food.

What about non-standard chemical methods?
As long as the data method is documented, the data can be useful. For instance, a pH reading accuracy is related to how the sample is measured. Knowing which instrument or technique was used informs the reviewer about the accuracy of the data.

What about different conclusions being drawn from the same data set?
As long as the data set is truthful, accurate and objective, it is not uncommon for 20 people to have 20 different opinions of what happened. The main thing is to know how the data was collected.

How much does the question drive the results of the study?
Any study is organized with a particular rationale. However, one data set will not only answer just one question if the data results are presented clearly.
Why is first flush monitoring important?
By measuring pollution during wet and dry seasons, we learn more about transport of sediment and other erosion effects.

In Trinity County, over 80% of the land belongs to Bureau of Land Management. How does that compare to Sonoma County where most of the land is in private ownership? That is, is there a difference in the quality of data developed by government agencies vs. professionals retained by private landowners?
The quality of any data being developed will be proportional to the level of training for researchers, the initial design of the study and the manner in which data is collected and organized.

What about the comparison between data collected by the agencies over the long term in a standardized format and data collected by volunteers?
Don't sweat the study design and parameters. Decide whether it will be valuable activity for the RRWC. You can build the capacity to share information, e.g., RRIIS. The last three pages of the meeting packet have information developed by the WIAM work group. Good data tells the user how good it is by providing documentation for the study design, sampling protocol and analytical results.

What about politically sensitive data collection? e.g., water diversions How can it be done successfully?
The data must be funded with an objective statement of purpose and clear question for the study. Participants in any study must be adequately trained. Some information on water diversions is not available to the public, i.e., diversions at the sub basin level. For example, the census information is not provided in too fine a detail for each community to protect the privacy of individuals.
It is generally more effective to focus on best practices rather than single out individuals. Asking what the local water budget should be is less charged than asking where are the illegal diversions. By comparing the local soils, precipitation, and hydrology, an informed conclusion about how much water should be present is possible. Pointing fingers and threatening litigation is more likely to result in reduced access and less cooperative relationships.

How do we get grants and landowner permissions to monitor? Where and how should we be monitoring?
Contact Revital Katznelson for copies of a paper she presented last May that describes effective communication and monitoring models. Becoming aware of available training materials, broadcasting study results and defining local needs are all effective strategies.

ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT for a group as complex and diverse as the RRWC is difficult. While the Steering Committee did not make a specific recommendation for the organization alternative, it is apparent that some changes are needed to make work groups more efficient and improve the function of the Steering Committee. Maintaining our open communication while providing more accountability can potentially result in funding from private sources associated with the nonprofit partnership.

Zeno Swijtink updated the Council on the partnership with Sonoma County Community Foundation. Our proposal to partner has been accepted by their board of directors. Over the next month, an agreement between our Steering Committee and their board will be drafted so that the RRWC can approve the partnership for another year as part of the September agenda. One constraint in developing the partnership up till now has been our volunteer capacity to meet with foundation members during normal business hours. The project approval process remains the same but is expanded to include the foundation when a project is seeking private funds as well as public dollars. A project with foundation funding will have a dedicated project manager that reports to the foundation. Over the year, the foundation will expand the RRWC understanding of nonprofit requirements and advantages/disadvantages.
Questions
Will the foundation have veto power? Oversight on all projects?
They will be able to decline to participate in any project. The foundation may not participate in projects that are solely funded with public dollars

What is a sample project?
The outreach for the RRIIS and POA may be funded with private grants.

What about liability?
The project manager is an employee of the foundation and subcontracts tasks. Appropriate insurance is part of the scope of work for each project. Errors and omissions insurance for the Steering Committee members will be needed. The existing insurance policy for the Council provides general liability coverage and property loss for our assets or disruption of our operations.

What are the requirements from the foundation? Do we need to create officers if we have the Steering Committee and coordinator?
It is still being negotiated to have the Steering Committee more accountable. The Steering Committee will have the quality control oversight for each project's product deliverables, while the foundation will provide accounting. The details need to define roles and responsibilities.

Eric Sunswheat gave an overview of work group mechanics based on his participation in most active work groups formed by the Council. Functional work groups have a strong coordinator with a clear agenda and funding for the task at hand. The most well attended meetings have had an educational component like a presentation from agency staff. When emails and handouts are well organized, they can promote good discussion. For instance, WIAM meetings for the RRIIS have had specific agendas with clear, organized information presented. With the challenges of our geography in scheduling meeting locations, it has been convenient to schedule two meetings for the same day. A modern alternative is to use web based conference calls instead of meetings. A meeting of work group should be validated by the number of people attending rather than caucus representation, i.e, five interested people can have a valid work group discussion.

The public caucus has interest to present a motion to the Steering Committee to have the requirement for caucus support reduced from 3 caucuses to 2 caucuses. This was due to projects in the salmonid restoration and public outreach and education work groups lacking economic participation. Work groups began funneling issues through caucuses, e.g., the fishway letter was first proposed by salmonid restoration but was required to go back to committee for lack of economic participation. The letter was then taken up by the environmental caucus.

In summary, despite geographic challenges, work groups are most effective when organized around a particular issue with a clear budget. Open discussions with all members of the community are encouraged.

Daniel Iacofano began the discussion of strategy driving structural choices. Reducing the work groups to five that align with the POA areas can morph dysfunctional groups that don't meet to either ad hoc or standing work groups to address projects identified in the Plan of Action. Members pointed out that the current work group structure was defined in the Project Study Plan. While it is required in the rules of operation for each council member to participate in a work group, the lack of participation has been the greatest hindrance for workgroups recently. Rosters are outdated and new volunteers are not indicating their interest. Funded work groups work, others are not as effective.

Thinking of work groups as standing project groups like WIAM with the RRIIS or breeding grounds like POE as venue for ideas to come forth shows the different group needs. Breeding ground work groups are a way to interest new members of the community in participating with the Council. Having fewer work groups prevents dilution of resources and burnout by people that now attend 3 meetings instead of one to address the same issue. Leadership for the work groups is inconsistent. Some members find that acting as the leader prevents more of their own participation in the meeting.

Others questioned whether we are creating work groups without any demand. If a work group has an issue and a budget, there is push to accomplish something. Without defined projects or proposals and a clear funding strategy, the work group cannot move forward.

Having a coordinator helps tremendously, still there should be more emails out to the Council instead of having to go to the web site to find information. The coho recovery work group is an example of information that should be shared more widely. Work groups should give a status report at each Council meeting as a regular portion of the agenda.

Kay McCabe asked to address the Council. She thanked the Russian River Watershed Council for its continuing support of the Russian River Celebration, which is now in its 5th year. By addressing the river basin as a watershed, the Russian River Celebration continues to support the Russian River Watershed Council and its mission. Kay proposed a partnership in which the Celebration would attain 501.3c status and fund RRWC activities. John Cramer, Brad Lundborg and Bev Wasson are members of the Celebration that have endorsed this idea.

Kay will work with the coordinator to prepare a written proposal that can be shared with the public outreach and education work group when it meets in early Aug (8/9 5-7PM Healdsburg library). The proposal can be reviewed and sent on to the Steering Committee after the work group review.

NEXT MEETING-Members asked that Kay McCabe's proposal be on the September agenda along with a report from the Steering Committee. Including the motion to reduce work group project approval from 3 to 2 caucuses was recommended.